19 Month old TV Broken Currys dont want to know

dreamypuma

kaya wrote: »

why would you expect the op to pay for an engineers report when the sales of goods act covers them ?

Step away from the keyboard.

kaya

lol, really, if the goods have lasted an unreasonable amount of time its up to the retailer to replace them, unless you think 19 months is reasonable why should the op pay for an engineers report? it doesnt have to be an "inherant" fault , the only proof needed is that the op didnt damage the item , which currys engineers would find out, please dont bother hitting the like button for this useless post!

redped

kaya wrote: »

why should the op pay for an engineers report?

SoGA factsheet states:

"If a consumer chooses to request a repair or replacement, then for the first six months after purchase it will be for the retailer to prove the goods did conform to contract (e.g. were not inherently faulty)

After six months and until the end of the six years, it is for the consumer to prove the lack of conformity."

So after six months, the OP would need to pay for an engineer's report to prove an inherent fault. If this does show there's an inherent fault, I believe the OP can also claim back the cost of this report (maybe someone can tell me if I'm right on this?)

Esqui

Yes, should the report show an inherent fault, the consumer is reimbursed the cost of it.

whitelabel

kaya wrote: »

lol, really, if the goods have lasted an unreasonable amount of time its up to the retailer to replace them, unless you think 19 months is reasonable why should the op pay for an engineers report? it doesnt have to be an "inherant" fault , the only proof needed is that the op didnt damage the item , which currys engineers would find out, please dont bother hitting the like button for this useless post!

you might need to brush up on the sales of good act, theres a great site moneysavingexpert.com with lots of info

dreamypuma

kaya wrote: »

lol, really, if the goods have lasted an unreasonable amount of time its up to the retailer to replace them, unless you think 19 months is reasonable why should the op pay for an engineers report? it doesnt have to be an "inherant" fault , the only proof needed is that the op didnt damage the item , which currys engineers would find out, please dont bother hitting the like button for this useless post!

I'll pass you your coat....for your equally useless post

gordikin

kaya wrote: »

lol, really, if the goods have lasted an unreasonable amount of time its up to the retailer to replace them, unless you think 19 months is reasonable why should the op pay for an engineers report? it doesnt have to be an "inherant" fault , the only proof needed is that the op didnt damage the item , which currys engineers would find out, please dont bother hitting the like button for this useless post!

You're wrong..read the soga to see where...nobody has hit your thanks button on MSE/consumer rights...think about why?

1. We are all plonkers?

2. You are wrong?

...what do you think?

Unintentional

kaya wrote: »

lol, really, if the goods have lasted an unreasonable amount of time its up to the retailer to replace them, unless you think 19 months is reasonable why should the op pay for an engineers report? it doesnt have to be an "inherant" fault , the only proof needed is that the op didnt damage the item , which currys engineers would find out, please dont bother hitting the like button for this useless post!

It does have to be an inherant fault... :doh:

wealdroam

kaya wrote: »

lol, really, if the goods have lasted an unreasonable amount of time its up to the retailer to replace them, unless you think 19 months is reasonable why should the op pay for an engineers report? it doesnt have to be an "inherant" fault , the only proof needed is that the op didnt damage the item , which currys engineers would find out, please dont bother hitting the like button for this useless post!

Kaya, can you imagine a situation where a tv was accidently damaged, e.g. dropped, by the consumer?
Or maybe had liquid spilt in through the vents at the top?

Those are extreme examples, but are you really suggesting that just because the thing has "lasted an unreasonable amount of time its up to the retailer to replace them".

After six months it is for the consumer to prove the fault is/was inherent, and an engineer's report stating such is the way to do that.

Dave101t

there is a reason tv's come with a 12 month warranty, its a 12 month warranty!
if they come with a 24 month warranty, its a 24 month warranty!

if i have a tenner in my pocket, i cant just pretend its a £20!